On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:44:55PM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> > In other words, objects that do not compare equal can also have the same
> > hash value (although too much of that will reduce the efficiency of
> > Python's containe
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I'd rather add a generator to the itertools
> module:
>
> itertools.iterhash(iterable) # yield incremental hashes
>
> or, copying the API of itertools.chain, add a method to hash:
>
> hash.from_iterable(iterable) # return hash cal
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 21 December 2016 at 20:01, Erik Bray wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> > Option 2: Similar to option 1, but using a custom type alias, rather
>> > than
>> > using a C99 bool directly
>> >
>> > The closes
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, it's been very interesting.
Hash algorithms seem particularly sensitive and tricky to get right, with a
great deal of research going into choices of constants, etc. and lots of
gotchas. So it seemed worth asking about. If I had to bet on whether
repeatedly acc
On 29 December 2016 at 19:20, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> With respect Josh, I feel that this thread is based on premature
> optimization. It seems to me that you're *assuming* that anything less
> than some theoretically ideal O(1) space O(N) time hash function is
> clearly and obviously unsuitab
